If cars want to use the roads then they should be made to pay road tax.
Does anyone here know why licensing was introduced for car drivers?
If you see a cyclist breaking a law, you should follow them and get out and smash their bike up a bit, maybe shunt them off the road or try to bend their wheel or something, just to make them aware they're in the wrong. That's what the hardman of the crisp world on here does.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
So it's not equivalent then.
But you should said all vehicles should be treated the same?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You must be thick. When I said treated the same, I obviously (and explained this above) meant that they should have the same chance of getting caught for breaking the law.
Each case is punished differently, the same way someone who does 32mph in a 30mph may get a speed awareness course, but if someone does 90mph in a 30mph they get a ban. They have broken the same law, but been punished based on severity.
is that clear? I am not capable of explaining it in more simple terms.
at least half the cyclists i see on the roads jump red lights
Then what sh be done Winston, just ignore it?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by De Gea's understudy (U3110)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by De Gea's understudy (U3110)
posted 1 minute ago
I also work in Manchester city centre and witness bicycles running red lights literally every single day on my walk to the office.
As OP says it is quite often Deliveroo drivers in particular who fly through at full speed without any regard to pedestrians and indeed have almost been hit on more than one occasion!
I think making cyclists accountable is a very good idea in theory, but admit that practically it would be challenging. Perhaps start by regulating the couriers as they're definitely the worst offenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What actual problem are they causing?
Apart from irritating you, that is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think breaking the laws of the road is simply 'irritating', it is unlawful and dangerous and wouldn't be considered defensible behaviour except a minority of cyclists have an arrogant sense of entitlement and spout off constantly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dangerous.
Is it?
How dangerous? Got any information about the problems caused by red light jumping cyclists?
Don't you think that is relevant to a debate about licensing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seeing as people have died from being hit by cyclists then yes it is relevant. Licences would in theory hold more of them to account and improve road use behaviour. Imagine how many more cars would drive equally badly if they knew there was no consequences.
If you want to defend law breaking then carry on but be aware you're coming across as a monumental tool
vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
Oh great, insults. That'll help.
So just to be clear, everything is fine apart from the fact that a small percentage of traffic lights in the UK have cameras on them, and at those junctions cyclists have an unfair advantage over drivers.
Is that the extent of the problem?
De Gea's understudy (U3110)
How many people have died because of being hit by a cyclist running a red light?
How many cyclists have killed someone and not been caught?
Where did I defend law breaking?
Dangerous.
Is it?
-----------------
Cyclists who don't abide by the rules of the road can still cause injury to themselves, pedestrians or cause a collision with a motorist.
To suggest otherwise is a bit silly.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 10 seconds ago
vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
Oh great, insults. That'll help.
So just to be clear, everything is fine apart from the fact that a small percentage of traffic lights in the UK have cameras on them, and at those junctions cyclists have an unfair advantage over drivers.
Is that the extent of the problem?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried to have a reasonable debate, but you scuppered that in your first few comments.
To answer your question, pretty much. It's about giving cyclists the knowledge they could be caught. The same way that if a driver comes up to a red light and there are no cars around, he would be less inclined to jump the light because he knows there is a chance that there is a camera on the light.
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 36 seconds ago
Dangerous.
Is it?
-----------------
Cyclists who don't abide by the rules of the road can still cause injury to themselves, pedestrians or cause a collision with a motorist.
To suggest otherwise is a bit silly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'Can'.
How often do they?
You see, if you want to propose a law change then you need some actual data. You need to show the extent of the problem that you're trying to solve.
Surely you can see that is logical?
Tenuous things fact Winston, they often face two ways. Anyone can say they do research, but that can mean reading a couple of articles or studying it via university.
Surely it should be irrelevant how dangerous a cyclist jumping a red light should be, if they're on the road then they need to obey the laws of the road.
I'm sure there are plenty of instances of cars jumping red lights that are no danger to others, but it's still against the law and should be punished.
vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
I'm still trying to be reasonable.
So, given that licensing for cyclists would have a negative effect on the health of the population, would cost the tax payer a huge amount of money and would have no real tangible effect on deaths/injuries on the road, you still want it because it would level the playing field for the small percentage of junctions that have a traffic light camera?
I mean this politely - do you really think you've thought this through?
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
Tenuous things fact Winston, they often face two ways. Anyone can say they do research, but that can mean reading a couple of articles or studying it via university.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, feel free to put some facts up in support of licensing.
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 28 seconds ago
Surely it should be irrelevant how dangerous a cyclist jumping a red light should be, if they're on the road then they need to obey the laws of the road.
I'm sure there are plenty of instances of cars jumping red lights that are no danger to others, but it's still against the law and should be punished.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never claimed that they shouldn't obey the laws.
The debate is whether we need licensing for cyclists and yes, the extent of the problem is absolutely relevant.
'Can'.
How often do they?
You see, if you want to propose a law change then you need some actual data. You need to show the extent of the problem that you're trying to solve.
Surely you can see that is logical?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not proposing law changes. I am trying to get you to open your eyes and see that cyclists can be hazardous to others if they don't abide by the rules of the road.
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 3 minutes ago
'Can'.
How often do they?
You see, if you want to propose a law change then you need some actual data. You need to show the extent of the problem that you're trying to solve.
Surely you can see that is logical?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not proposing law changes. I am trying to get you to open your eyes and see that cyclists can be hazardous to others if they don't abide by the rules of the road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well maybe you should review my comments in the context of the debate I'm having.
Don't suppose you get out on your bike much Winston
Are you allowed to text while cycling on the road?
This was published back in October:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calls-for-new-law-as-cyclists-injure-more-pedestrians-xtpmlxn6r
531 collisions with pedestrians last year resulting in 120 seriously injured and 3 killed. It's also up 15% from the previous year and the highest figures since records began in 2013.
Use that data as you will.
Where I live (like most places these days) its pothole City and the more rural you go the worse it gets. It never ceases to amaze me that these gangs of middle aged men and women dressed like teletubbies are so prominent as it must be fackin scary when a vehicle overtakes forcing the bike to stick to the edge of the road where its generally the most dangerous.
Always great when you get stuck behind 10 or so of them riding double file!
I blame Bradley Wiggins and yes anybody over 18 who uses the road should pay tax. Maybe the extra revenue might lead to an improvement although I doubt it.
531 pedestrians were reported hit by bikes, 32 seriously injured.. Not high but not nothing. Probably more not reported because just a bruise or scrape.
Just Google figutes
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 2 minutes ago
This was published back in October:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calls-for-new-law-as-cyclists-injure-more-pedestrians-xtpmlxn6r
531 collisions with pedestrians last year resulting in 120 seriously injured and 3 killed. It's also up 15% from the previous year and the highest figures since records began in 2013.
Use that data as you will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many of those incidents were from cyclists breaking the law?
How many involved cyclists who couldn't be identified?
Sign in if you want to comment
Cyclists - part 2 (off topic)
Page 3 of 64
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 25/6/19
If cars want to use the roads then they should be made to pay road tax.
posted on 25/6/19
Does anyone here know why licensing was introduced for car drivers?
posted on 25/6/19
If you see a cyclist breaking a law, you should follow them and get out and smash their bike up a bit, maybe shunt them off the road or try to bend their wheel or something, just to make them aware they're in the wrong. That's what the hardman of the crisp world on here does.
posted on 25/6/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
So it's not equivalent then.
But you should said all vehicles should be treated the same?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You must be thick. When I said treated the same, I obviously (and explained this above) meant that they should have the same chance of getting caught for breaking the law.
Each case is punished differently, the same way someone who does 32mph in a 30mph may get a speed awareness course, but if someone does 90mph in a 30mph they get a ban. They have broken the same law, but been punished based on severity.
is that clear? I am not capable of explaining it in more simple terms.
posted on 25/6/19
at least half the cyclists i see on the roads jump red lights
posted on 25/6/19
Then what sh be done Winston, just ignore it?
posted on 25/6/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by De Gea's understudy (U3110)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by De Gea's understudy (U3110)
posted 1 minute ago
I also work in Manchester city centre and witness bicycles running red lights literally every single day on my walk to the office.
As OP says it is quite often Deliveroo drivers in particular who fly through at full speed without any regard to pedestrians and indeed have almost been hit on more than one occasion!
I think making cyclists accountable is a very good idea in theory, but admit that practically it would be challenging. Perhaps start by regulating the couriers as they're definitely the worst offenders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What actual problem are they causing?
Apart from irritating you, that is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think breaking the laws of the road is simply 'irritating', it is unlawful and dangerous and wouldn't be considered defensible behaviour except a minority of cyclists have an arrogant sense of entitlement and spout off constantly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dangerous.
Is it?
How dangerous? Got any information about the problems caused by red light jumping cyclists?
Don't you think that is relevant to a debate about licensing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seeing as people have died from being hit by cyclists then yes it is relevant. Licences would in theory hold more of them to account and improve road use behaviour. Imagine how many more cars would drive equally badly if they knew there was no consequences.
If you want to defend law breaking then carry on but be aware you're coming across as a monumental tool
posted on 25/6/19
vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
Oh great, insults. That'll help.
So just to be clear, everything is fine apart from the fact that a small percentage of traffic lights in the UK have cameras on them, and at those junctions cyclists have an unfair advantage over drivers.
Is that the extent of the problem?
posted on 25/6/19
De Gea's understudy (U3110)
How many people have died because of being hit by a cyclist running a red light?
How many cyclists have killed someone and not been caught?
Where did I defend law breaking?
posted on 25/6/19
Dangerous.
Is it?
-----------------
Cyclists who don't abide by the rules of the road can still cause injury to themselves, pedestrians or cause a collision with a motorist.
To suggest otherwise is a bit silly.
posted on 25/6/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 10 seconds ago
vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
Oh great, insults. That'll help.
So just to be clear, everything is fine apart from the fact that a small percentage of traffic lights in the UK have cameras on them, and at those junctions cyclists have an unfair advantage over drivers.
Is that the extent of the problem?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried to have a reasonable debate, but you scuppered that in your first few comments.
To answer your question, pretty much. It's about giving cyclists the knowledge they could be caught. The same way that if a driver comes up to a red light and there are no cars around, he would be less inclined to jump the light because he knows there is a chance that there is a camera on the light.
posted on 25/6/19
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 36 seconds ago
Dangerous.
Is it?
-----------------
Cyclists who don't abide by the rules of the road can still cause injury to themselves, pedestrians or cause a collision with a motorist.
To suggest otherwise is a bit silly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'Can'.
How often do they?
You see, if you want to propose a law change then you need some actual data. You need to show the extent of the problem that you're trying to solve.
Surely you can see that is logical?
posted on 25/6/19
Tenuous things fact Winston, they often face two ways. Anyone can say they do research, but that can mean reading a couple of articles or studying it via university.
posted on 25/6/19
Surely it should be irrelevant how dangerous a cyclist jumping a red light should be, if they're on the road then they need to obey the laws of the road.
I'm sure there are plenty of instances of cars jumping red lights that are no danger to others, but it's still against the law and should be punished.
posted on 25/6/19
vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
I'm still trying to be reasonable.
So, given that licensing for cyclists would have a negative effect on the health of the population, would cost the tax payer a huge amount of money and would have no real tangible effect on deaths/injuries on the road, you still want it because it would level the playing field for the small percentage of junctions that have a traffic light camera?
I mean this politely - do you really think you've thought this through?
posted on 25/6/19
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
Tenuous things fact Winston, they often face two ways. Anyone can say they do research, but that can mean reading a couple of articles or studying it via university.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, feel free to put some facts up in support of licensing.
posted on 25/6/19
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 28 seconds ago
Surely it should be irrelevant how dangerous a cyclist jumping a red light should be, if they're on the road then they need to obey the laws of the road.
I'm sure there are plenty of instances of cars jumping red lights that are no danger to others, but it's still against the law and should be punished.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never claimed that they shouldn't obey the laws.
The debate is whether we need licensing for cyclists and yes, the extent of the problem is absolutely relevant.
posted on 25/6/19
'Can'.
How often do they?
You see, if you want to propose a law change then you need some actual data. You need to show the extent of the problem that you're trying to solve.
Surely you can see that is logical?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not proposing law changes. I am trying to get you to open your eyes and see that cyclists can be hazardous to others if they don't abide by the rules of the road.
posted on 25/6/19
comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 3 minutes ago
'Can'.
How often do they?
You see, if you want to propose a law change then you need some actual data. You need to show the extent of the problem that you're trying to solve.
Surely you can see that is logical?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not proposing law changes. I am trying to get you to open your eyes and see that cyclists can be hazardous to others if they don't abide by the rules of the road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well maybe you should review my comments in the context of the debate I'm having.
posted on 25/6/19
Don't suppose you get out on your bike much Winston
posted on 25/6/19
Are you allowed to text while cycling on the road?
posted on 25/6/19
This was published back in October:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calls-for-new-law-as-cyclists-injure-more-pedestrians-xtpmlxn6r
531 collisions with pedestrians last year resulting in 120 seriously injured and 3 killed. It's also up 15% from the previous year and the highest figures since records began in 2013.
Use that data as you will.
posted on 25/6/19
Where I live (like most places these days) its pothole City and the more rural you go the worse it gets. It never ceases to amaze me that these gangs of middle aged men and women dressed like teletubbies are so prominent as it must be fackin scary when a vehicle overtakes forcing the bike to stick to the edge of the road where its generally the most dangerous.
Always great when you get stuck behind 10 or so of them riding double file!
I blame Bradley Wiggins and yes anybody over 18 who uses the road should pay tax. Maybe the extra revenue might lead to an improvement although I doubt it.
posted on 25/6/19
531 pedestrians were reported hit by bikes, 32 seriously injured.. Not high but not nothing. Probably more not reported because just a bruise or scrape.
Just Google figutes
posted on 25/6/19
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 2 minutes ago
This was published back in October:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calls-for-new-law-as-cyclists-injure-more-pedestrians-xtpmlxn6r
531 collisions with pedestrians last year resulting in 120 seriously injured and 3 killed. It's also up 15% from the previous year and the highest figures since records began in 2013.
Use that data as you will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many of those incidents were from cyclists breaking the law?
How many involved cyclists who couldn't be identified?
Page 3 of 64
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10